why does postmodernism gets so much hate?

>>10010664
Their ideas don't mean anything

because the modernists are used to fighting teddy boys

>>10010664
His best contribution to music is helping record Ys, he didn't even produce it.

>>10010664
Cause they're hacks.
>Lets just cherrypick what has and doesn't have value, then ignore these other values over there that we still have

>>10010668
t. never read any theoretical/critical work on postmodernism
t. never knew Starobinski

>>10010691
>this is your brain on Peterson

>>10010664
what is postmodernism?

Cause they won't stop poisoning western civilization

File: jordan-peterson-portrait.jpg.size.custom.crop.1086x724.jpg (63KB, 1086x724px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 1086x724px

>>10010664
Papa Memerson's programming, basically.

It's ugly, and ugly art serves no purpose.

>>10010691
>>Lets just cherrypick what has and doesn't have value, then ignore these other values over there that we still have
that's modernism, dearheart. it's what the postmodernists were trying to stop. you should try stopping posting.

>>10010698
Thx, I'll add him to my 280+ philosophy/politics/economics to read book list.
>The Invention of Liberty, 1700-89
>Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Transparency and Obstruction
Most of it seems to be untranslated, I guess that says everything about his/her importance.

>>10010724
So postmodernist are just modernists?
I didn't claim choosing values was bad, the hypocrisy of saying that you don't, Is.

What are some good books that will objective in defining and examining modernism and post-modernism? I'll worry about criticism later.

File: 1445713509287.jpg (29KB, 400x324px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 400x324px

>>10010664

>15 years ago, it's the year 2002
>be me in school, 11 year old impressionable kid
>teachers calls themselves liberals, and impart knowledge onto me:
>treat everyone fairly and with respect, no matter which culture and place they come from
>skin color is irrelevant, we are all human beings and love and tolerance is all that you should preach
>in unity, we are strong

>fast forward to the present, it's the year 2017
>be me, bitter 26 year old
>co-workers and passerby protesters call themselves liberals, and impart knowledge onto me:
>PAY REPARATIONS YOU FUCKING WHITE MALE YOU CIS SCUM OPPRESSOR
>NO ONE FUCKING CARES ABOUT YOUR OPINION, YOU'RE WHITE, SHUT THE FUCK UP
>DUDE FORCED DIVERSITY EVERYWHERE, FUCK COMPETENCE, WE NEED A PERFECT SPLIT BECAUSE
>CALL ME XHEY AND XHIR, IF YOU DON'T I WILL REPORT YOU TO THE AUTHORITIES AND YOU WILL BE FINED $250,000
>FREEDOM OF SPEECH? NICE EXCUSE YOU FUCKING NAZI
>GO ON GO ON, I DARE YOU, JOIN THE FUCKING ALT-RIGHT, I KNOW YOU'RE A NAZI DEEP DOWN EVEN IF YOU DON'T WANT TO ADMIT IT YET

File: 2dc5cbef542e13355bcf8409de807158--japanese-architecture-architecture-design[1].jpg (61KB, 736x492px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 736x492px

it sucks

>>10010731
no, darling, the postmodernists were fighting against saying you don't. you really should stop posting until you consult a dictionary at least.

>>10010701
socialism

>>10010708
>sacrificing alliteration to get 'meme' in there

not the artistic choice i would have made for that post

>>10010770

radical leftists are devoid of any artistic talent

>>10010708
>mfw its essentially the opposite

File: 1504898078187[1].jpg (8KB, 194x260px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 194x260px

it triggers brainlets and intellectuals alike.

brainlets can't understand it...intellectuals understand it but see its endgame

>"post" debates

its not 1994 anymore

File: picasso-s-guernica-madrid-spain+1152_12979804554-tpfil02aw-3818.jpg (138KB, 1152x432px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1152x432px

>>10010773
>i don't do culture

File: jst.png (648KB, 736x492px) Image search: [Google]

648KB, 736x492px

>>10010763

>>10010775
The the question and then that post again... We are still on /lit/ aren't we?

>>10010779

the endgame is postmodernism is power through chaos

the ruling elite trotting it out are using chaos to stir hatred among the commoners, setting common folk against each other

that's why the wage gap is increasing, because people are too busy hating each other to do something about the ruling elite

>>10010664
Because there is no refuting it. There is only digging your head on the sand and shouting
>NO IT'S STUPID
>>10010668
Postmodernism is not a set of "ideas". It is an inevitable realisation of the relativity of ideas.

Because people haven't actually read them.

>>10010782

>picasso

get that pleb garbage out of here

give me Michelangelo and Da Vinci any day over that ,

Peterson once used deSelby as an architectural reference without realizing what he'd done. Naturally, it attracted the type of critics deSelby inevitably does.

>>10010795
Kek! Literally the only two artists you've heard of.

File: Kalervo Palsa 2 xD.jpg (62KB, 570x800px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 570x800px

>>10010795
Eat artist's shit and admire Kalervo Palsa instead

File: awful.jpg (88KB, 783x533px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 783x533px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kdnmT_7gLE

Reminder that this is still Peterson's biggest mistake to date

What the fuck was he thinking?

>>10010795
>>10010798
>wait as he Google's "patrician art"

>>10010799

>leftist "art"

absolutely repugnant

>postmodern film
>DUDE REFERENCES KITSCH AND PARALLEL TIMELINES LMAO

>postmodern literature
>DUDE IRONY LMAO

>postmodern architecture
>DUDE LET'S SACRIFICE USABILITY AND COMFORT IN THE NAME OF GIMMICKS LMAO

>postmodern painting
>DUDE THESE SIMPLE GEOMETRIC FORMS AND RANDOM SPLATS OF PAINT DISCLOSE THE UNCONSCIOUS MIND INTO CANVAS LMAO

>>10010797
I thought it was kind of them to not mention his reference to Dr Kurt Unruh von Steinplatz; say what you will about deSelby criticism, they respect a man's right to a Jungian outlook on meeting the dead or otherwise beyond the veil, and seem to have taken his at his word he met the good doktor himself.

File: 9697dcffeb2abf6b404ae0998951ac30.jpg (679KB, 1345x1400px) Image search: [Google]

679KB, 1345x1400px

>>10010812
Would you say the same about this?

>>10010807
What do you mean?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcEJr8h_yGM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYdfVA5JURE

File: kalervo palsa śmierć xD.jpg (177KB, 1200x803px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1200x803px

>>10010812
leave Kalervo alone
Primitivism, bitch!

t. Nikifor Krynicki

>>10010795
that reddit spacing
that /pol/tard namedropping
that random comma at the end
what a sublime bait

>>10010818

Fucking brilliant.

I love this type of imagery. Otto Dix's triumph of death mixed with his plates on the trenches come to mind, as do The Disasters - Goya

Who is this?

>>10010818
That's not postmodernist.
No matter what the artist claims it is.

>>10010819

>he did more

peterson is too smart not to realize that this looks like he's intentionally trying to align himself with the alt-right

>>10010790
>All ideas are relative. Except this one.
Yawn. Pomo is brain cancer.

>>10010790
how do you refute a non-argument?

>>10010678
t. can't into shellac

>>10010832
>Otto Dix
I know what is so great about this artist if you know what I mean hehehe

>>10010814
>>DUDE THESE SIMPLE GEOMETRIC FORMS AND RANDOM SPLATS OF PAINT DISCLOSE THE UNCONSCIOUS MIND INTO CANVAS LMAO
abstract expressionists are modernists
>>DUDE IRONY LMAO
About as much as the Greeks. Better off mentioning the footnotes if you're trying to seem non-retarded.

It's like you really hoped the things you didn't like about the humanities were postmodern and never bothered to check. Do you go to /mu/ and tell them you hate The Beatles because you can't stand metal?

File: GoyaLosDisparates.jpg (133KB, 630x428px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 630x428px

>>10010832
It is Dix. Goya is my favourite artist, it's good to see another fan.

>>10010827

>(((le))) reddit memespacing is over 9000 kekekek do fit in yet (((guise))) lol remember lolcatz???? lol milhouse is not a maymayyyyyyyy

>>10010835
He's been on Joe Rogan 3 times.
He's safe.
He's transcended chastisement.

>>10010844
>3deep5me
>T. Postmodernists

>>10010851
lmao

>>10010834
>I know better than the artist

Would it surprise you to know that Dix's work featured in the Nazis' "Degenerate Art" exhibition, towards the start of the regime?

They spoke about art in much the same way you /pol/ tourists do. Although, you probably knew that.

>>10010844
>abstract expressionists are modernists
>implying I wasn't talking about neo-expressionism

>About as much as the Greeks
t. has read neither postmodern lit or the greeks

>>10010836
As I said, it's not an idea. Learn to read. Me noticing that you see an object from a different angle that I do is not a philosophical position, it's an observation.
>>10010840
You can't, that's my point.

>>10010859
>Dix's work featured in the Nazis' "Degenerate Art"
not that guy, but that's even further proof it isn't a postmodern work

>>10010872
He was talking about "leftist" art. Though the distinction is probably lost on him.

>>10010861
>neo-expressionism
>not liking neo-expressionism
m8 it's neither hard to understand nor really the type of thing that engenders hate. if you really have a vendetta against it, never have kids.

>t. has read neither postmodern lit or the greeks
Why are you pretending to be Finnish on a board that knows the difference theatrical and Socratic irony? Do you think that the people with real educations believe you despite years of schooling, or are you hoping to be friends with people as ignorant as you? You might want to fish somewhere else if it's the latter.

>>10010865
>ALL OBSERVATIONS ARE RELATIVE. EXCEPT THIS ONE.
>ALSO NO YOU'RE WRONG. YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT I WROTE IS OBJECTIVELY WRONG. L2READ.
Sorry for the caps lock but all those performative contradictions are making me really tired. Pomo is brain cancer.

>>10010840
You can't refute it but you can't prove it either because that would tequire to instantiate logic in a realm where something are not relative.
Pomo is hide and seek disguised as a valid framework.
It's so passé imo

>>10010766
Um, no, sweetie, it is you, who is, the brainlet.

File: 970.jpg (277KB, 929x653px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 929x653px

>>10010859
>I know better than the artist
>>10010818
Is objectively aesthetic. It's self evidently beautiful. No forced thought or emotion is required. There's nothing to find, it's all there immediately.

That's the difference between art and "art". Postmodern "art" can't be self-evident. If it is, it's no longer postmodern.

>>10010889
>It's so passé imo
it really is
shit was already done by the sophists

>>10010877
But you're proving me right by disagreeing with me, because you're introducing the second perspective of these points that makes them relative. So even my statements are relative.

Your second point is just silly. Postmodernism allows GREATER understanding of people's various positions. It doesn't prescribe that we should misunderstand each other.

>>10010893
Again, our visitor from the containment board was saying leftist art is "absolutely repugnant".

I pointed out the ridiculousness of him claiming to know better than the artist because he was, up until now, only aware of Picasso, Michaelangelo and Da Vinci.

>>10010892
you know you can look these things up, on google, in dictionaries, encyclopedias, criticism books, and a wealth of scholarship that neither of us can erase from existence. i look forward to your siege of the academie though.

>>10010899
What is Occam's razor?

File: Screen-Shot-2016-01-10-at-10.42.06[1].png (136KB, 616x397px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 616x397px

sooooooooo deep

>>10010906
Left and right are false dichotomies.
There are only variant degrees of authority.

>>10010861
>>abstract expressionists are modernists
>>implying I wasn't talking about neo-expressionism
...those are late modernists. I don't know why I'm correcting an idiot but here we are. nonoko etc

>>10010917
Okay, Hobbes. Thanks for dropping by.

>>10010906
I just said it wasn't postmodern (topic of thread), someone argued with me after that statement; I assume he does think that it is postmodern.

>>10010911
Again, I'll just repeat this point because you don't seem to address it at all. It's not a philosophical position, it's an observation. Occam's razor does not require that you ask people to leave the room to make experience simpler. Postmodernism is NOT founded on a philosophical position but an observation of reality.

>>10010921
A finite system needs trade and some form of growth (progress/change) to exist > a system without these basic capitalist LAWS, will collapse > only how much authority/freedom there should be matters in the long run, everything else dies.
Every functioning state is capitalistic to some degree. The only thing that varies is the degree of freedom/fascism.

>>10010795
hahahahahhahahahahahahaha

>caring about meaningless terms

there's a reason you faggots are sitting here arguing over this outdated shit and aren't actually creating something

>>10010798
>>10010799
>>10010808
>>10010827
>>10010956
>haha I'm so much more cultured than you, I know Picasso!

>>10010964
>I feverly attach my intellectual insecurities onto everyone else in an desperate attempt at covering my lack of basic artistic knowledge behind a facade of radical tastes

this is like getting angry at people laughing at the kid talking about how led zepplin is the best of all time and how new music sucks. You sound like the plebiest of plebs. They are laughing at you because of how little amount of cultured knowledge is needed to see how much of a retard you are. You sound like a parody

>>10010940
And you were not able to answer my simple question of what is Occam's razor? Yes, you may have an extra special observation of reality, what use is such if you cannot penetrate the central point of a simple question?

I think it’s important to differentiate between two kinds of postmodernism. One is a theory of reality that tells us our fallible senses and truth systems don’t allow us to access objective truth, and therefore we can only construe it. The other is its outgrowth in academia, especially French intellectual circles, that took this belief to an extreme, relativising everything without replacing the shattered foundations with anything. The latter became a fad of obscurantist, masturbatory writing along the lines of Derrida that mistakes philosophy for aimless deconstruction of society’s beliefs without arriving at any positive conclusions. The former is, I believe, an accurate analysis that can serve as the foundation for finding truth in the future, as it releases us from our Western suppositions and lets us think freely again.

>>10010978
thanks for proving my point

>>10010982
Oh, I thought it was a rhetorical question implying that postmodernism goes against Occam's razor.

My understanding is essentially that it's about not introducing new entities into a system if they are not absolutely necessary. Why do you want me to explain it to you?

>>10010991
Kek. And how did he do that?

>>10010986
that's not a problem with postmodernism, it's a problem with US education. it's only referred to as a postmodern movement by people LARPing as educators and without the background to understand it. yes, that includes memerson with the bluehaired meanies.

>>10010994
Proving, not so much, the inability of a postmodern position to give an answer. But the inefficiency has greater costs that such a position conveniently ignores.

>>10010991
>this is the level of discourse on this board

lmao if you have nothing of actual substance to say, why even comment? You are like a retard who thinks everyone who understands the answer of 10+10 is pretentious and is showing of their mathematical knowledge when it's literally just people who cannot fathom how a grown ass man can lack so little self awareness

>>10010759
None of this happens to you, you lying mongoloid

>>10011014

stay mad radical leftist cuckold

the right is winning, how's it feel?

>>10011003
by evidencing the fact that he's a snob sperg going after people who don't appreciate the same middle-brow garbage he does

>>10011010
prolix discourse isn't necessarily quality discourse
now go back to your ethiopian jazz

>>10010986
Post with your real name

File: f7ac32036f5aacf8c5481d608b07f8fd398dcf039f6f10525f6c087825bd279f.jpg (52KB, 523x724px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 523x724px

>>10011023
<

>>10011024
"By evidencing". My, that's awfully highbrow. It's no wonder you've heard of Michaelangelo and Da Vinci.

>>10011009
This is the biggest misunderstanding of postmodernism as I see it. Postmodernism is not nihilism, which doesn't consider any answers as valid. Postmodernism presents MANY answers as valid, even ones that might appear to contradict. It's not a negation of meaning, it's a saturation. Life is full of contradicting perspectives and ideas, and just because one is true does not discount the other.

Now you might say that you'd rather a logical system that has NO contradictions. Fine. But then postmodernism would just say well this is one valid perspective of many, and others don't want a logical system with no contradictions and that's valid too.

This is my point to the OP about why there is so much hate. Postmodernism cannot be argues against because it's not an argument, it's an observation about the many different perspectives that life offers, and that it's not so simple to just choose between them.

Its also interesting that Neitsche gets put on the side against postmodernism but much of what he said encourages it. Each superman creates their own system of ethics and morality. Also, he spoke of multiple worldviews (Apollonian and Dyonisian) as if they each had equal claim to validity despite being contradictory.

Again, postmodernism is frustrating because it's not refutable, it can either be accepted or dismissed, but there is not going to be any good reason for doing either, just as there is no real reason to tell someone to shut up other than you don't have the patience for more perspectives.

>>10010986

You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of 4chan are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!
Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my bit to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture!

File: 1231213.jpg (28KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 512x512px

>>10011039

looks like a cool dude I'd have a pint with, what's the problem?

oh right, this is what you're looking for. the defender of truth and justice, and all the downtrodden in the world

File: Heads-Scanners.jpg (47KB, 640x358px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 640x358px

>>10011048
B-but, neo-Marxism! P-post modernism is... well, MEMERSON says... Oh, er... human nature?

daily reminder to you should read and understand what you're trying to discuss before discussing
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/

>>10011039
I'm not the one who made the da vinci comment
but do go on, tell me all about his provincial taste

>>10011024
lmao your examples of good art are artists second graders use to sound smart and you are coming at me for acting like a middle brow snob because I'm not retarded enough to form my tastes and opinions around memes? Explain to me why Michelangelo was such a great artist and why Picasso isn't. Please anon I'm waiting for this amazing analysis

>>10011048
>that's not a philosophical position
shit son this might be the worst post itt

>>10010789
have you even READ Deleuze?

File: 1504383590061.jpg (6KB, 223x251px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 223x251px

>leftist retards trying to put down da vinci and Michelangelo who were far superior mechanically and creatively than picasso ever will be

>have to use some backwater esoteric benchmarks to justify their garbage liberal taste in art

>>10011105
I notice you have a different perspective here! Thanks for sharing it. I don't THEORISE that you do, I just notice that you do. I could extrapolate a philosophical system based in this, but right now I am happy to have just noticed the multiplicity of experience and opinion.

>>10010664
because it's freakin GAY

>>10011048
If all answers are correct then it can never be wrong. Yes, well so what? As a movement, would you not agree that it is a journey with many destinations. Then how can a postmodernist interact with reality, and not expect entropy to consequence his being. Then what is the function other than to create further questions, does it not seem a redundant adventure?

>>10011126
that observation requires a set of epistemic, logical assumptions to work, hence a philosophical basis
every single postmodern strategy assumes a philosophical framework

File: poltards go away.jpg (84KB, 536x600px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 536x600px

>>10011121
No one is trying to put down Michelangelo and Leonardo you mongoloid. You probably don't even understand them.

>>10011121
>pleb uses same damn reaction image each time he strawmans

>>10011152

>y-y-you probably don't even understand them

I highly doubt the inbred liberal mind can understand something as deeply emotional as art.

>>10011146
Sounds interesting, anon, mind telling me what they are?
>>10011141
Postmodernism did not invent the problem of relativity or entropy. It has observed these things and extrapolated them. How is a movement towards greater awareness of perspectives redundant? Why do you want less questions in your life?

>>10011172
Go ahead and tell me why you think the fresco i posted in >>10011172 is good art then. Hard mode: no google. Also i'm not a liberal.

>>10010664

Because it's destroyed everything and given humanity nothing in its wake. It's the greatest force of destruction.

>>10010759
Notice how the narrator creates a past that never existed. This anticipates post's conclusion, in which the narrator creates a present that does not exist. By labeling himself a Caucasian male, then creating a non-existent persecutory reality, the narrator effectively satirizes the fears of white America, and, by extension, the alt-right. The narrator's creation is similar to the "alternative facts" presented by the alt-right in lieu of "fake news." In this case, the "fake news" is the equality supposed by SJWs. In this satirized world, SJWs take on the properties of Nazis. Thus, the narrator creates a self-aware parody of himself, an ironic postmodern Nazi, who ironically hates Nazism and liberals--whom are ironically depicted as ironic Nazis.

>The French philosopher and literary theorist Luce Irigaray, for example, has argued that the science of solid mechanics is better developed than the science of fluid mechanics because the male-dominated institution of physics associates solidity and fluidity with the male and female sex organs, respectively.
lol

>>10011048
Postmodernism doesn't necessarily claim many answers as valid, it more points out the impossibility of saying which is the only/most valid, and that attempts to do that are biased by ones subjective episteme

Postmodernists are right in that morals are relative, but if you don't set some boundaries where you will not let your moral code to be trampled upon, others with far stronger convictions in less tolerant systems of belief will eventually take control.

At least, that's what I think will happen.

>>10011216

Obviously this is retarded but it doesn't invalidate all left wing academia

You can find psychologists that say retarded things, that doesn't invalidate all psychology. You can find historians that make wildly inaccurate claims, that doesn't invalidate all historians

>>10011216
>French
Really all talk about postmodernism should boil down to if it's ok to genocide the French. They have no one worth caring about anymore since Boulez died. Kill them all I say.

>>10010664
it's not cool anymore

>>10011172
Also, since you clearly are more knowledgeable about art that those stupid liberals you should also be able to tell me about the differences between Leonardo and Michelangelo, and how they differently to Classical art. I bet you don't know about that either.

>>10011238
*differently relate

>>10010691
You just described modernism

>>10010807
molyneux needs some sorting out desu

>>10011193
>>10011238

>please educate me on art

I don't do free lessons, nice try though

>>10011215

>it never existed because I said so!

ah yes maybe since at that time you might have only been 1-2 years old, you underage faggot

>>10011179
Nor did I say that Postmodernism invented those problems. What I meant by being a redundant movement, is even in my youth I had an awareness of other perspectives before I had encountered Postmodernism. I think perhaps you conflate greater awareness with quantity of perspectives. And I submit that nor does quality of perspective negate quantity of perspectives. But wouldn't you agree that one must let the relativity of perspective come together, much like gravity forces mass toward one another, if one wants to centre itself in the universe.

>>10011014

He's exaggerating some for rhetorical effect, but it's obviously true and the trajectory will only get more extreme.

File: 1504750703749.jpg (56KB, 648x798px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 648x798px

>>10011266

This. It's blatantly obvious there's been a huge tone and policy shift in the left toward the more extreme, in the last 10 years.

Back in 2007 none of the shit that's happening right now was even 10% as prevalent. It all exploded in this decade.

because enlightenment values are way better
we need to complete the system of german idealism rather than leave it all behind for "THAT'S JUST LIKE YOUR OPINION, MAN": the movement

>>10011121
Who's putting down Da Vinci or Michelangelo? Everyone's mocking the idea that we should be impressed by someone referencing them; reading comprehension not your strong suit, I'm guessing?

>>10011258
>please educate me on art
I'm already educated on art you retard. I asked you basic questions to see if you're were educated on Renaissance art (as you claim) or another /pol/tard who namedrops renaissance authors without understanding them and whose knowledge on art doesn't go behind LeGoodOldTimes vs LeEbilLiberals. Since you can't do anything but regurgitate memes i assume you are the latter.

>>10011277

I'm the original poster and I never insinuated that you should be impressed by me knowing about those 2.

So you just took something that you made up and ran with it. There's that intellectual dishonesty again.

File: 1491536284015.jpg (80KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1000x1000px

>>10011280
>I'm already educated on art you retard

Nah, you're another pseud who's wasting his time on 4chinz. You aren't an accomplished artist, you aren't an accomplished art critique.

You are nobody. A nobody begging for tips on anything in art. Begging in a roundabout way, but begging.

>muh /pol/

Give it a rest, you fucking sperg.

>>10010699
Underrated

File: DANKTRUMPMEMES.png (36KB, 550x555px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 550x555px

>>10011039
That image is small time

>>10010814
Read a book nigger

>>10011289
>you aren't an accomplished art critique.
Very DaDa, I think he could do it.

>>10011273

It's near impossible to stop an avalanche that's already started coming down. We were warned what would likely happen (though if there was equal opportunity in the press - equal sharing of ideas from both sides - from the 60s to now I doubt this would have happened), but people didn't listen. They don't want to take action until it's forced in their face to.

>>10011284
Hitting me with the intellectual dishonesty meme when you called other posters plebs and threw out some of the most generic names possible to contrast as patrician. You know damn well what you were trying to do you buzzword snake.

>>10011263
To me that just sounds like finding a way to value one's own perspective and core beliefs, and letting them be a beneficial guide even while staying aware and validating of other perspectives. To me, this is an argument FOR the usefulness of engaging with postmodernism and really considering how relativity can be lived with well, not for its redundancy.

>>10010814
Ideologically Modern architecture is much more postmodern than Postmodern architecture

>>10011289
>this fucking cope and lack of any real knowledge

so pathetic, honestly reread this post and ask yourself, "why does everyone think I'm a retard online"

>>10011284
>intellectual dishonesty

What is it with Memerson's lot and this phrase? "Dishonesty" isn't good enough, they have to give themselves the veneer of middlebrowness.

>>10011289
>You aren't an accomplished artist, you aren't an accomplished art critique.
>Projecting this much
You're pathetic. I asked you about basic notions that any retard that has opened a book on art would've answered. Stop posting and kill yourself.

>>10010814
>shakespearean drama
>DUDE SPACESHIPS

>shakespearean literature
>DUDE FLYING MONKEYS IN EVERY PLAY

>shakespearean architecture
>DUDE DUBAI STYLE GLASS SKYSCRAPERS

>elizabethan painting
>DUDE CAMPBELLS SOUP PAINTING

^that's how retarded you are. if you're pretending to be retarded, you're better at it than someone who doesn't need to try.

>>10011289
>Nah, you're another pseud who's wasting his time on 4chinz. You aren't an accomplished artist, you aren't an accomplished art critique.

Got anything to back that up? It would be awfully intellectually dishonest of you to just say such a thing.

File: c0088e47577bd2f9fbfdf640fd55fe4e.jpg (53KB, 564x682px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 564x682px

>>10011328

>>10011313
>>10011314
>>10011316

pseuds livid

>>10011307
*Again, redundancy as a movement. What are you thoughts on future movements? And have you not witnessed the futility of perspective in this thread?

>>10011333
>knowing the basics of the topic you're trying to discuss is being a pseud
You're embarrassing yourself.

>>10011333
>I cannot prove what is right nor wrong, however I am certain people feel

How very postmodern of you

>>10011336
The dark side of modernity is lack of thought because of a supposed objective system that has everything sorted out for you. The dark side of postmodernism is lack of thought because of a supposed lack of a possibility of having anything sorted out.

Personally, I think the future lies in complete ontological agnosticism (note, do not read laziness) combined with a humanist pragmatism and undying curiosity. The human species and its experience of reality is evolving, living well is always going to be a moving target. There is something new under the sun.

>>10011338
>>10011344

>same exact posting style
>clean 2 minutes apart

hmm...

File: Screen Shot 2017-09-11 at 7.21.03 PM.png (23KB, 352x156px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 352x156px

>>10011364
>INTELLECTUALLY
>DISHONEST

File: a38d4c01ee2c22ed48da9277a57b3296.png (5KB, 343x162px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 343x162px

>>10011364
goodnight, mememan

>>10011364
>Same posting style
>Spacing is different
>Punctuation is inconsistent
>tfw you meant format

Feel free to come back when you're ready to discuss writing.

>>10011364
>>10011367
>>10011368
Too good.

>>10011373
Ah right, you were only PRETENDING to be retarded.

>>10011336
Also, I would add that everything becomes redundant once it is merely seen and approached as a "movement". In my opinion, philosophy should be applied, and this is always practical and personal.

>>10011379
Just shotgun your tears, apply whatever ego boosting chaser you need, and fucking move on man.

>>10011388
lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLoG9zBvvLQ
all you need to know about postmodernism

>>10011430
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/

all you need to know about postmodernism

>>10011014
It's hyperbolic, but fairly accurate to the mainstream consciousness of today

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjQA0e0UYzI
Oops!

>>10010664
What the fuck is it?

>>10010790
>no refuting it
Go be a STEMsperg somewhere else
NO IS NO, ABSOLUTELY NO, VALID OR RELEVANT ARGUMENT TO DEFEND THE ABSURD STEMSPERG NOTION OF 'FALSIFIBILITY'.
YOU BUY INTO IT BECAUSE SOME CUNT IN A POWDERED WIG SAID YOU SHOULD

>>10010911
>this idea is correct becuz somebody sed so
What the fuck is wrong with you people?
LE LOOK AT LE US
WE ARE LE CRITICAL THINKERS
WE CATEGORIZE AND FORCE EVERYTHING INTO NEAT PROGRAMMES (because 'program' is too '*merican' VIVA LE FRANCE!) AND NEVER EVER CRITICIZE THEM, THEY ARE LE SELF-EVIDENT *drowns self in wine* *dances french folk dance* *commits pederasty*

>>10011525
>>10011534
Can you take your meds and come back in about an hour?

>>10011121
>mechanically
Irrelevant
>creatively
Wrong
Try again. By the way, you're the liberal here. I'm a theocrat.

>>10011222
>tolerance is good even though 'morality is relative'
Fuck off

>>10011276
Why are they better?
>>10011535
>HAHA ANYBODY WHO CRITICIZES ME IS JSUT LE CRAZY
Do you fucking idiots actually think this is 'critical thinking'?

>>10010678
>Big Black
>Rapeman
>Shellac

fuck you, everything he does is great

>>10011546
Strawmanning with incoherent allcaps is not criticism, it's a tantrum.

>>10011553
>strawmanning
Back to /pol/ddit
>tantrums are bad because they make me feel uncomfortable
My ass, you are pathetic

>>10011559
No u.

This is the power of your presence in the discourse. Take at least 50% of the responsibility, bucko.

>>10011540
learn how to read

>>10010763
>ionian collumns
objectively the worst desu, corinthian master race all the way

>>10010699
this desu, him and his fans are almost intolerable

>>10010664
Because that one guy on youtube who cries a lot says that it's bad

>>10010789
>the ruling elite trotting it out

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHHHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

fuck off kid

>>10010664
Personally I think it's illogical To view truth as relativistic, assuming the triadic theory of semiosis is real.
No I will not elaborate :^)

>>10010759
Its the fault of the liberal teachers who spewed nonsense like "respect everybody no matter what". Respect is social currency and when you devalue currency its meaningless. Apply respect on an individual basis, its the only thing that makes sense. If a group has detrimental values, call them out. Anything else just leads to the destruction of virtue.

>>10010789
You mean distribution of economic inequality not wage gap.

>>10011674
He's not wrong. Its fed top down through mass media indoctrination/consumer culture. Do you actually believe in melevolent corporations? Are you that naive?

>>10011722
i don't think half you cunts can define modernism...nevermind what paradigm of modernity has been surpassed to deserve the title postmodernism.

its a boogeyman for you to get sanctimoniously riled up about

>>10011780
also, suck your dick

>>10011780
>i don't think half you cunts can define modernism
m8, you don't even need to be an arty lalahomo man to know about the crystal palace of 1851

>>10011786
not an argument

>>10011795
it's a wallop not an argument you need, prancer

If you have a problem with {how things currently are}, then you have a problem with postmodernism, or {how things are perceived in contemporary society}. Any supporter of {postmodernism} who refuses to acknowledge its criticism whilst critiquing something like capitalism is dishonest at best.

>>10011809
try antidisestablismentarianism. it's even longer and you also don't have to look it up when you use new bits of your keyboard. i promise nobody will laugh at you then either.

>>10011563
>discourse
Humanist meme.

File: 14554798687460[1].jpg (754KB, 1853x758px) Image search: [Google]

754KB, 1853x758px

>>10011801
nice comeback, poofter


you still come across like a kid out of their depth.

what is modernism?
what paradigm of modernity has been surpassed in such a way as to gt you knickers in such a twist?


substantive answers please.

I know why I think "postmodernism" is bs. but I strongly suspect that you have now idea what you're talking about.


try not to copypasta from wikipedia etc as I will be checking using turnitin (I werk in a uni lol kekeke)

>>10011832
>didn't know about crystal palace
>wants to call other people poofers
you're legitimately more retarded than /sp/ and probably five times as easy to beat up [including their fatty bumbatties].

>>10011832
>spoonfeed me
He already gave you the date and location of The Great Exhibition, which is where you would start if you wanted to have a surface knowledge of Western Modern art. The other option is the Salon de Refuses. You've basically flunked out of a high school art class at this point, so that you haven't skimmed wikipedia means you won't even with someone telling you you've already been given search terms. You're the reason for your ignorance, not anyone else. Get basic.

File: best-performance-ddl[1].jpg (15KB, 640x240px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 640x240px

>>10011836
nice comeback.

not an argument.....or anything really.

you look like a stupid fool.

I want you to admit that you're a stupid fool.

a fool.

look in the mirror and say "I'm a stupid fool and have no idea what I'm talking about or what I'm getting so uppitty about"
there's a good boy,now


humility is a virtue

>>10011780
Not an argument

>>10011856
I'll admit you're dumber than some blokes I know with brain damage.

>>10011819
No, not talking about mere establishment. Postmodernism is the color palette of an era, like modernism, rococo, baroque. It's the passive, stunted mind of a plebeian who has to act independent in a world of choices; yet they want to be passive observers.

File: feels-good-man[1].jpg (37KB, 600x653px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 600x653px

>>10011857
>>10011861
you're not helping yourself.

what is modernism?
what part/s of modernism have been surpassed in such a way as to justify the term "postmodernism"?

don't use wiki etc

y u so mad about it?

don't use wiki etc

you should think of this an an exercise. it'll be good for you.

why get angry about things you don't understand?

>here's a stupid frog picture

>>10011876
>plebeian
Well, your mind stopped working before the Roman Republic, so have you ever thought that maybe your theory is actually the smell of your own farts? That was still popular then, when people read Greek aloud.

>>10011886
I hope you are just pretending to be retarded. Anyways, I'm off to bed.

>>10011882
I suggest Modern Art 1851-1929, by Brettell. It'll give you the intro you need. Welcome to /lit/, you have to read the book

>>10011893
>I meant my words to mean the buzzword meanings
I was being kind to assume you knew what you were trumpeting was farts. Good luck at the races.

>>10011882
>what part/s of modernism have been surpassed in such a way as to justify the term "postmodernism"?
Postmodernism is the hatred of standards. Have any, and you are an alien, an enemy in this land. Modernism had the facade of standards, or the echo of them. They have been sold now, or revolted against.

File: photo[1].jpg (24KB, 274x274px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 274x274px

>>10011894
>>10011894
cop-out.

i've read enough on the subject

what is modernism?
what part/s of modernism have been surpassed in such a way as to justify the term "postmodernism"?

y u so mad about it?

don't copypasta off wiki or internet reading lists or amazon.

I'm interested in why you post 90's plebeians give get so riled up about things you know nothing about.

don't copypasta off your stupid picture book either.

this is fun

>200+ posts and nobody has established the most basic foundations of this thread.....nobody can define what they're talking about WITHOUT ctrl+v


hilarious really. I hope you're not racking up serious debt on your "education"

>>10011911
You didn't recognize references teenagers too young to post on this site are expected to know as a surface knowledge. You failed at that level. You got a book recommendation and now you chose to stay ignorant. I'm not going to force you to learn through spoonfeeding.

It's kind of fun to watch you act like an ugly girl with no tits trying to get Chad to do her homework though.

>>10011014
I work at a university. Yes it does.

>>10011919
>It's kind of fun to watch you act like an ugly girl with no tits trying to get Chad to do her homework though.
kek, it is really like when they don't know they're fugly and they think tsundere looks cute and not like a beached whale on them. i'mma watch that jigglypuff girl gif again, because you're probably just talking to a fat dude, anon.

File: 1318119087001[1].jpg (92KB, 330x357px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 330x357px

>>10011919
i don't need a book recommendation. I know everything. I wasn't asking the questions for my own benefit. I was trying to work out what you kids actually know about modernity and "postmodernity" and why you're getting worked up about it.

apparently you know diddly-squat.


>here's another hilarious frog picture


back to what I posted earlier; its a good exercise to determine what you mean by these words before you start throwing them about, nevermind get yourself all in a frazzle about it.

NIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGER

>>10011962
you know you're acting like an ugly chick right?

>>10011968
i has a sad now ;_;

my feelings...they are hurted

>>10011999
God /lit/are so easy to troll.

>>10010795
>Da Vinci
>good
lol

>>10010893
>Postmodern "art" can't be self-evident. If it is, it's no longer postmodern.

False, appropriation art is pretty self-evident bru.

>>10011897
What are standards but rules to adhere to, and what is more a rule to adhere to than conceptual art? Your definition is false.

wake me up when it's time for Neo-Romanticism

>>10011809
If you have a problem with how things currently are, it's likely you are applying a postmodernist critique from 60 years ago.

>>10010678
He's fine as an engineer. Dirty Three, Melt-Banana, Don Caballero, it's just that his own music is pretty unimpressive.

>>10010799
woah.... his own masculinity killed him!

>>10010861
>Jean-Michel Basquiat
>"""Simple""" shapes
Seriously?

>>10010877
Ok, ok. So you are saying that there is objectivity. Prove it.

>>10011172
>deeply emotional
kek
now you sound like a fucking 12yo faggot

>>10011968
DELET
ugly chicks are cool
not talking about fatties tho

>>10012813
Revolution eats its children. It's like you don't get it; they have their life and they are judged by themselves.

>>10012809
>conceptual art
Beauty and virtue. Principles, not theories or algorithms.

>>10010786
fuken lol

>>10012809
The main difference is postmodernism rejects stratification of any kind. Modernism at least recognized that stratification is a reality. Postmodernism implies that the only way anyone is in a better position than anyone else is due to the result of taking advantage of others under them - which is often true, but they go as far as to want to eliminate any stratification of any kind, even in areas where natural talent or cognition is the driving factor of stratification.

>>10012813
The problem with the way things are is simply that it is too early to implement. When scarcity of goods is less of a problem and economic incentive isn't a huge factor in driving any technological or infrastural progress, there mayyy finally be some room for postmodernism but even then it needs to be fed from the bottom up not the top down. Indoctrination to groom better consumers (less individual identity, bigger markets) isn't the most virtuous means of driving a culture and its destined to be fought against every step of the way and in my opinion doing nothing but creating a backlash that will set all organic progress 10 steps behind where it started.

>>10014697
>they go as far as to want to eliminate any stratification of any kind, even in areas where natural talent or cognition is the driving factor of stratification.
that's pretty untrue. it questions former definitions of natural talent and cognition (whatever the fuck that phrase means) but doesn't seek to replace them with nothing.
heidegger damns ontology, but is convinced that the ontic studies its concealed are more worthwhile than even ontology has proven.
it's impossible to read the French postmodernists (especially those around Foucault) without coming up against a reference so passive it goes "those in the know will understand to which paper I am of course referring". they expect their readers to be well read enough that a lecture on the many meanings of a word in Plato is at the tip of their tongue at any moment, and to read many sentences with multivariant meanings.
postmodern art often replicates former art to question its importance in new contexts too. the question doesn't always get answered "the newer one is best" in those contexts, but it's still an open question of merit when it's asked. sherry levine's never going to be as good as any of the people she copies

modernism however recognizes stratification as a lie agreed upon. it holds up the current stratification and says others who uphold it do not meet the standards they set. that is why Olympia caused such a scandal: because modern society knew that was a whore but saying how you know that's a whore and not a goddess tells people you visit whores.

>>10014727
I feel like we have different ideas of what modernism and postmodernism is. Postmodernism to me is power through chaos and rejection of logic in place of ethos. Rejection of order. Rejection of scientific thought or preconceived values. Socialism/groupthink/conformity vs individualism/discourse. Rejection of the past.

>>10015623
m8, I'm sorry but I'm going to have to wikipedia you
>Modernism, in general, includes the activities and creations of those who felt the traditional forms of art, architecture, literature, religious faith, philosophy, social organization, activities of daily life, and even the sciences, were becoming ill-fitted to their tasks and outdated in the new economic, social, and political environment of an emerging fully industrialized world. The poet Ezra Pound's 1934 injunction to "Make it new!" was the touchstone of the movement's approach towards what it saw as the now obsolete culture of the past.
A lot of the postmodern tradition is dealing with the idea that "power through chaos" just means a power vacuum into which flows something worse and more powerful in which ethos is easy to fake. Unironically, read more.

>>10011276
Well, no one is stopping you. Go out there and be somebody!

>>10013722
Yes this is true which is why I think there should be more effort put into actually reading the postmodernists themselves rather than inferring what postmodernism means from ephemeral media referencing other ephemeral media.

>>10013731
What are beauty and virtue based on?

>>10014697
>but they go as far as to want to eliminate any stratification of any kind

Then they cease being postmodernists. Wanting to eliminate presupposes stratification of what it and isn't acceptable which has a hierarchical basis.

>>10014707
Postmodernism completely belongs to this time and place (the first world).

>Indoctrination to groom better consumers
This is exactly what postmodernists criticise.

>>10014727
>it holds up the current stratification and says others who uphold it do not meet the standards they set.

This is interesting because that is what I think is 'deconstruction', either meaning you have actually claimed postmodernism for modernism or that actually Derrida is as much not a 'post-structuralist' or 'post-modernist' as he says. But modernism to me, in terms of standards, is about value systems created by profit and optimisation. The people that don't meet these standards are the ones thrown out on the street or into the margins and are much in the purview of social justice, Marxism, and postmodernists.

>>10010668

Fpbp

Because it has directly caused through marxism, sjwism, and political correctness the downfall of the Europe.

File: 1505036624417[1].webm (2MB, 360x640px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 360x640px

>>10010759
God has disconnected from the server.

>>10010678
>cant into big black
>cant into shellac
>cant into rapeman
>cant into in utero
>cant into jesus lizard
>cant into pussy galore
>cant into fugazi
>cant into red krayola
>cant into mclusky


you suck and your feet stink.
pee-ew!

File: 1505282542002.png (406KB, 607x686px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 607x686px

>be vilified for being white
>be vilified for standing up for yourself, your family, your people
>see globalist justification in boycotts against your people
>see markets collapse and starvation of your people
>see it labeled a hate crime which only applies to your people, making it illegal to defend yourself
>be at a point where you are forced to push Jews out to survive
>have every other nation influenced Jews turn on you the moment that happens

Based marxists amirite lit

>>10010759

Take the concept of privilege. In contemporary sociology, this refers to a set of unearned advantages that certain groups (usually whites and males) possess simply by virtue of possessing a certain identity (e.g. white, male, heterosexual, etc). It is then argued that privilege for one group can only exist where there is also oppression of another group: privilege and oppression entail one another like a hill entails a valley. Accordingly, if privilege is tied to the very possession of a certain identity, then the very existence of that identity (and the group associated therewith) is ipso facto proof of oppression. The end result is that certain groups (again, usually whites and males) impose oppression on other groups (non-whites and females) simply by existing: so long as they exist, the claim of oppression (and its corollaries, bigotry, prejudice, malfeasance, exploitation etc) remains valid. One does not need to be especially bright to grasp the intellectual and political utility of this proposition.

>>10011962
>i know everything

the surest tell that one knows nothing. :/

File: 1372306617827.gif (478KB, 140x105px) Image search: [Google]

478KB, 140x105px

>>10016667
Jesus what have we done

File: Webb.jpg (312KB, 1040x629px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 1040x629px

>>10016706
> In contemporary sociology, this refers to a set of unearned advantages that certain groups (usually whites and males) possess simply by virtue of possessing a certain identity (e.g. white, male, heterosexual, etc).

>>10016710
Sodom and Gomorrah anon.

File: vanitas1.jpg (192KB, 1302x770px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 1302x770px

This thread just proves that everyone is a bitch. Everyone's complaining and not actually talking about anything anymore.

This is fucking disgusting.

>>10016776

>implying I'm not mailing people letter bombs as we speak

[DEAR NSA THIS IS TOTALLY SATIRE]

>>10016685
This is a thread about postmodernism

>>10016786
satire of what?

do you know what satire is? at this point actually mailing bombs would be more satirical than joking about it.

>>10016790
And what do you think cultural marxism is?

>>10016706
>Accordingly, if privilege is tied to the very possession of a certain identity, then the very existence of that identity (and the group associated therewith) is ipso facto proof of oppression.

Logical misstep. Whites aren't proof of oppression; it is predicated on context rather than essence.

>>10016710
Are you mad that he's a healthy white male enjoying the outdoors?

>>10016798
Nothing resembling anything postmodernists have written.

>>10016706

Postmodernism is essentialism masquerading as anti-essentialism through rhetorical techniques.

>>10016808
Is this an essentialist argument?

>>10010908

>he starts academic research on google and a dictionary

kys pseud

>>10016798
You're just screaming "I have only gotten my understanding of philosophy from youtube videos and have never been on a higher-education campus in my life."

>>10016821
>I have gotten my education from "higher education campus"
found the crypto-marxist.

and first I heard cultural marxism was in a history book about Weimar republic when people were addressing the degeneracy as cultural bolshevism and described it with same exact terms and phenomenons.

its you, who is uneducated, dear bruce.

>>10011534
Cringe

>>10016828
They were wrong then too.

/lit/ soys love postmodernism and defend it because their entire worldview is mediated by status striving and oneupsmanship

their entire lives are like a ruthless urban darwinian machine where they have to keep up with the latest trends in culture in order to fit in with their peers or get laid

they are the exact group of people that gramsci critiqued in his essay on culture

aping postmodernist talk is a low barrier of entry compared to other areas allowing them to fake it and fit in with head-nodding nu-males with black framed glasses, much like aping whatever p4k is pushing this month in indie folk punk

File: s&g.jpg (147KB, 893x777px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 893x777px

>>10016840
I suppose the bible is wrong too.

>>10016828
Brother, you're clinging to the same tired old lines without showing any indication of individual thought. You're the one acting like a Bolshevik, parroting talking points that you clearly don't understand. There are people of all viewpoints on university campuses, and you're just deluding yourself by thinking you're special & more intelligent for shunning academia.

But sincerely, I hope your current position works out for you. I'm sure that you're immensely happy with your current position & livelihood. I'm sure you fancy yourself quite the overman for being alone & working a dead-end job while shitting all over academics in your free-time between wage-based shifts. Hope your boss doesn't get too angry with you tomorrow, wage-slave. G'night.

>>10010759
why do Americans do this?

>>10016849
Not an argument.

The phenomenon of cultural marxism has been observed for 90 years and the descriptions fit the phenomenon and the explains the phenomenon logically.
>no ur a bolshevik
Say that when I throw you into the oven

>>10016859
>Not an argument.
Whoa there, brother. We were arguing? I had no idea. I thought this was a dialogue. I guess someone who doesn't know how to think critically wouldn't know how to conduct a dialogue; you're too intent on repeating polemics that you can pull off of your favorite websites.

>The phenomenon of cultural marxism has been observed for 90 years and the descriptions fit the phenomenon and the explains the phenomenon logically.
We've gotten off track. What does this have to do with post-modernism again?

>Say that when I throw you into the oven
Oh, haha. You're joking now right? Or is this "an argument" in your mind? Grow up.

>>10016862
Deconstruction is essential part of postmodernism, and has fueled cultural marxism (alongside frankfurt school, which is another essential part of postmodernism, pc, and sjw)

File: 30s_poster_1.jpg (899KB, 640x901px) Image search: [Google]

899KB, 640x901px

communism will win, nazis against the wall

>>10011232
This will change soon enough, anon. Give us 20 years.

>>10016667
Why are we still here? Just to suffer?

>>10016846
Your interpretation of the bible is wrong.

>>10016859
>Effects of capitalism, freedom, democracy
>Bolshevik

>>10016868
How has deconstruction fueled cultural marxism?

I'll agree PC is postmodern but nothing else is. 'Deconstruction' you hear of in America is nothing like what Derrida says. You probably think it is about breaking down hierarchies and tradition yes?

>>10016631
You're very bad at defining movements and seem to want to conflate things that are disparate. I'm not claiming Derrida for modernism, I'm claiming Manet for modernism. You need to stop thinking your thoughts are worthwhile and start learning things by rote, because freshers don't get shit this twisted and they're idiots.

>>10016922
I'm not the person you were initially replying to so maybe read my comment again in a different way and respond accordingly.

>>10011657

This... it's an art style- an incredibly boring one- not a set of values.

You can spot /pol/ so easily with this. They really just like hearing themselves speak.

>>10016927
>>10016922
I read it again, and the same response is deserved. If you want to stop conflating modernism and postmodernism, you're gonna have to go learn some shit like basic definitions.

>>10010664
Because the ideas it presents are nothing new and arguably retarded. Whether this is because every retard calls themselves a postmodernist and spew forth endless amounts of shit or it is in itself shit I'm not sure. Don't think I've seen anything tagged as postmodernism be good. Thread is shit btw.

>>10010664
because its circular, self-defeating, endless, whiny and nihilistic. the endgame of it is mass suicide by total anarchy.

>>10016969
Maybe you should move on to advanced definitions. There is literally nothing wrong with what I have said.

>>10017001
>Because the ideas it presents are nothing new

No fucking shit, you mean like the idea that there is nothing new?

>>10017029
How can something be self-defeating and endless?

>>10017043
Which is why postmodernism is fucking retarded and filled with shit-eating leftists and edgy 20 year olds who think they're the next great philosopher who are just too deep for the common man. It's objectively one of the worst things to happen in recent time. It's a thing for psuedo-intellectuals to circle-jerk each other that requires no effort.

>>10017051
Because the people who it defeats recruit the next line of retards.

>>10017029
>Nihilism
>Post-Modernism

Pick One

>>10017039
>I mistook you naming Manet for Derrida
I'd consider that quite wrong and a poor reading, and that your set of conclusions which do not consider the text in question to be fanciful, and your definitions to be forced, clumsy, and ultimately useless as it would also define the Counter Reformation as "Derrida" as much as Manet. Your confidence in your abilities at even a basic level are sorely misplaced. You can dig your heels in and go nowhere, or you can get basic.

File: this will trigger lit.png (338KB, 1398x1200px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 1398x1200px

Add more to the horseshoe theory troll list so we can trigger both the redditors and pomo soyboys.

>>10017054
Maybe you got it all wrong though?

>>10017054
>Which is why postmodernism is fucking retarded and filled with shit-eating leftists and edgy 20 year olds who think they're the next great philosopher who are just too deep for the common man. It's objectively one of the worst things to happen in recent time. It's a thing for psuedo-intellectuals to circle-jerk each other that requires no effort.
you know most of it's from the 1930s-80s and that's stretching it towards the end?

>>10016667
I miss when civilization had moral guide posts. This subjective society stuff is just horrible.

I want off this ride.

File: 167_rgb_repro-web.jpg (410KB, 1200x807px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 1200x807px

>>10017063
I didn't mistake Manet for Derrida, I was talking about Derrida in the context of deconstruction. I take it you're not familiar with Derrida if you don't think that deconstruction tries to hold philosophy up to its own standards. In which case you should try those advanced definitions like I suggested. You'll probably see there is less discontinuity and obvious breaks between 'modernism' and 'postmodernism' as well, like the matter of the informe or slippage which Bataille formulates in reference to Manet. Do you think abject art is modern? Or wait, how could Rosalind Krauss be a trained modernist critic but be the one to introduce the American art world to French post-structuralism?

>>10017095
No, you maintained I was talking about Derrida. You done fucked up.

>>10017074
I know and look at where it's at now. You can pick parts of postmodernism and I'll occasionally agree it's okay or even good but as a whole it's nothing but a cancerous mess that is getting worse with each passing year. Whatever legacy it leaves will not be a good one.

>>10017068
Maybe I didn't though?

>>10017087
What? You mean you don't love moral relativism? Remember, all cultures are equal!
t. average postmodernist

File: download.jpg (8KB, 225x224px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 225x224px

>>10017104
>>10017087

>>10017097
No, I was talking about Derrida. I introduced Derrida as a subject when I compared deconstruction to your idea that modernism was about holding things to their own standards. The conversation is right there in the thread dude, you can read it any time.

>>10017104
>Maybe I didn't though?

What are you, some sort of postmodernist?

>>10017104
>I know and look at where it's at now. You can pick parts of postmodernism and I'll occasionally agree it's okay or even good but as a whole it's nothing but a cancerous mess that is getting worse with each passing year. Whatever legacy it leaves will not be a good one.
But it's not postmodernism that you're complaining about. If it were, it wouldn't be demanding you respect its pronouns or consider asking about pronouns to be polite. I don't see why you need to link the two when postmodernism presents many solutions to that problem. It's not a useful definition to lob together Heidegger, Foucault, and SJWism. It pretends the last one has anything in common with or any comprehension of the first two. You might as well call them pre-Raphelites as postmodernists.

>>10017097

Not the guy above, but you honestly sound like a pseud. Your posts try to mimic academic talk, while having no real depth to them. Your constant talk of "definitions" as some sort of counter-claim (while neither distinguishing between definitions, whether descriptive, explicative, or otherwise; nor going beyond the semantic level into deeper conceptual distinctions), and your use of one or two exemplars, seem to be indicators of this. It sounds like you've never actually done any philosophy.

>>10017118
>>10016631
>you have actually claimed postmodernism for modernism or that actually Derrida is as much not a 'post-structuralist' or 'post-modernist' as he says.
That's what you said. I made no such claim, and you mistook my claim about Manet as a claim and conclusion about Derrida. You're wrong and incapable of dealing with that in a way you'll learn. You're limiting yourself out of undeserved arrogance to below the standards of a freshman, and are unable to recover from your mistakes without committing further ones which dig you deeper into ignorance and denial. Get basic if you don't want to get owned for not being basic.

>>10017127
I'm not trying to mimic academic talk, I'm trying to tell him in a very basic fashion how Manet =/= Derrida and what modernism's generally accepted definition is. He's trying to pretend to be au fait with academia, but if you trust him on this, you're being led down the garden path by a blind man. Your choice.

>>10017127
definition, citation, partisan fetish without touching the substance: the american way.

>>10010795
>both fags
how does that make your conservie cock feel?

bump limit this shit-tier thread

>>10017134
>you mistook my claim about Manet as a claim and conclusion about Derrida

No, this is a misreading. For the third time, I introduced Derrida in the context of 'deconstruction' which occurred in the previous clause. I introduced 'deconstruction' because, as you can see from the quote, you claimed modernism was about others upholding stratification do not meet those standards. This claim reads like a deconstructionist claim, so we can come to two conclusions based on this, either:
1. you have said that something postmodern is actually modern
2. Derrida, since he is known for denying labels such as post-structuralist or post-modernist, is actually a modernist and your claim for modernism is actually modernist

Then I went on to suggest that it was 1. because modernist values, owing to the prevalent influence of the Enlightenment, industrialisation, capitalism, liberal democracy, etc., is actually about establishing new values based on efficiency, categorisation, profit, etc. Why else would deskilling occur in the arts? Why would Greenberg write that the elite class of society that originally funded the avant-garde was now too busy during the day working? Manet's prostitute is working class, yes?

And let's look at the fallout of modernism: the slave trade, homelessness and poverty, oppression, exploitation, inequality, nuclear warfare, genocide, environmental destruction, disregard for indigenous cultures, consumer culture, totalitarian institutions, etc. These concerns are commonly associated with postmodernism, yes?

>>10011962
hey that guy is a fucking retard huh. "That's not an argument (it clearly is.)" "You want me to explain something to prove to you I have knowledge on it? NAH here's a book recommendation instead [haha welcome to the club right you must be new i'm an arrogant cunt]." "DUDE YOU GOT A BOOK RECOMMENDATION WHAT MORE DO U WANT BE RESPECTFUL BRO."

>>10017134
>You're limiting yourself out of undeserved arrogance to below the standards of a freshman, and are unable to recover from your mistakes without committing further ones which dig you deeper into ignorance and denial. Get basic if you don't want to get owned for not being basic.

This has to be trolling.

>>10017173
>I still can't admit I was wrong or address my mistakes
That's not really doing much to my position at all in any objective sense since you refuse to deal with it. I'm not responsible for the voices in your head firing off about Derrida in incorrect and inappropriate moments, and I don't have to live with that mental incapacity. This really is a "no skin off my nose" situation for me, and the idea you're going to convince me or anyone legitimately interested in modernism that you were secretly right and not mistaking my position are nil, so all this does is really make you seem more insecure and more desperately in need of approval from idiots if the mainstream won't have you. Just sayin

>>10017184
>trolling.

Why? An intro to modernism course would be sufficient for him to see what the anon was referring to even if you were in a country that didn't teach history in secondary education. He's right that the other anon is trying to shoehorn Derrida into modernism and make out that it's his opponent who brought up that retarded idea.

He's talking some pretty basic shit. Or is it trolling because he's obviously talking to a retard like a cat playing with an injured mouse?

>>10017194
Derrida was introduced to prove you were talking out of your ass, so if you think proving you wrong is inappropriate then I guess we can understand why you're acting so defensive about an issue you're clearly (demonstrably) wrong about. Cindy Sherman is irrelevant to interrogating the differences between modernism and postmodernism I guess, as is Bataille, Krauss and Greenberg. Manet himself is apparently irrelevant too! Funny. I won't be replying again.

>>10017210
>trying to shoehorn Derrida into modernism

I did literally the opposite you idiot. Between 2 options when 1 was not shoehorning Derrida into modernism and 2 was, I went with 1. Please go to the hospital immediately.

>>10017213
No, you tried to claim I was making claims about Derrida and not Manet. Derrida came up because you brought him up and tried to fabricate an argument I never made. I've since pointed to where you fabricated it, and how it's mistaken, and you're still thinking whining will change that. It won't; it's done now and too late to delete it.

>>10017215
You literally tried to strawman that anon, and are the one who introduced Derrida. It's the fucking quote chain ffs that you're the one bringing in Derrida out of nowhere and saying it must be relevant to anon's point about Manet and modernism. You're pulling a sonichu.

>>10017221
I didn't even quote the part about Manet. It was totally irrelevant to my point. Maybe you have some sort of special mind that reads things in new ways.

>>10017227

Maybe you're just strawmanning anon because you're retarded and think typing Derrida makes you not retarded?

Jej, no, that's a definitely. His point wasn't hard to understand.

You brain farted and are trying to say he dealt it. If he had, he would have been talking about Derrida and not Manet.

But he didn't. You did.

>>10017236
Like I said, I wasn't talking about Manet at all, let alone confusing him with Derrida. I didn't even acknowledge he made the point about Manet because I didn't need to counter it or build on it. I agreed with it, but it was irrelevant to the point I was actually making so I didn't include it in the quote I was directly responding to. Is this some elaborate samefag damage control or something? There's no way two different people had the same buttblasted misreading. Please learn how green text works.

>>10017251

Your problem is that you said he was talking about Derrida, when you're the only one doing that.

You made up his position and then tried to argue with a strawman.

Did you really think he was going to claim the argument you made up as his own? Why?

Even with you trying to make the conversation about Derrida, he hasn't said anything at all about Derrida, so making up a position for him about Derrida is obviously going to look like you just made that up to anyone reading the quote chain with half a brain.

>>10017264
>Your problem is that you said he was talking about Derrida

I've only claimed the opposite ever since he claimed I said he was talking about Derrida. I explained how it was a misreading. I brought up Derrida because what he was talking about sounded like deconstruction. Here is how the conversation went:

>modernism holds people to their own standards
>that sounds like deconstruction which is not modernist. it is interesting that you think this since it is not really a common way of thinking about modernism
>why are you bringing up deconstruction? I never mentioned deconstruction
>you said that modernism holds people to their own standards but that sounds more like deconstruction
>I don't know why you thought I was talking about deconstruction
>again, I didn't say that -- you misread me
etc.

The only argument I claimed he made was that modernism holds people to their own standards. Fairly easy to follow. I don't know when mentioning counter-examples for someone's conception of some idea became creating straw men.

>>10010698
t. pseud who doesn't know how models, theories ,laws and principle's work

>>10017297

His claim about modernism isn't a claim about Derrida. You said it was. That's a bad mistake, especially when you keep making it and insisting the other anon just doesn't know what he meant to say was your strawman.

It's not him claiming something about Derrida, or something incorrect about modernism, it's that your brain fart said Derrida, and you tried to lay it off on him when he said he didn't say anything about that.

I think he left when the bump limit hit, but it's pretty obvious that you're shoehorning in Derrida and deeply insecure like he said.

You misinterpreted a paragraph about modernism and Manet as being about Derrida, and tried to tell me because you greentext out of context and brainfart about Derrida, that obviously anon was being unclear, and that anon must not know what he was really saying when he spent ten posts telling you
>I'm talking about modernism and Manet
You're also trying to tell me that you can see him mentioning Derrida where he doesn't and, for some reason, think I'll start hallucinating and agreeing that he brought it up. He didn't. You did. How can you not see this in the quote chain, even if you have Alzheimers?

To be honest, bro, it's kind of sad talking to you because the anon who held to his position seems right about your ability to recover and reassess your position. I'd write this one off and think twice about firing off the next time.

>>10017314
No, he is obviously unfamiliar with Derrida otherwise he wouldn't have made such a stupid claim about modernism. I was correcting him. It's not a strawman.

>or something incorrect about modernism

Yes it is. You can't even demonstrate what you're saying because you know it's wrong. Here's my quote where I brought up Derrida:

> or that actually Derrida is as much not a 'post-structuralist' or 'post-modernist' as he says

How retarded do you have to be to think I was talking about Manet? 'Post-structuralism' and 'post-modernism' weren't even terms when he was alive.

>You're also trying to tell me that you can see him mentioning Derrida where he doesn't

Where did I tell you this? Post the quote.

>>10017333
It's not a stupid claim about modernism. You just said he was right about Manet, which is why you didn't argue with him about that. It's in the paragraph you're trying to take out of context, redefine, and trying to shoehorn Derrida into.

You read it badly, bro.

I don't want to be the cat with the injured mouse, but you made a claim about his position that is unsupportable and keep maintaining it's his fault.

It's sad to watch and painful to correct, because I think you're just never going to be capable of admitting your mistake.

>>10017333
>Where did I tell you this? Post the quote.
You're still claiming that what anon was talking about in a paragraph about modernism and Manet is part about Manet, and part about *BRAINFARTS YOU NOT THE OTHER ANON HAD ABOUT DERRIDA*.

You mistook a definition of modernism for a definition of deconstruction and insisted that anon must have been talking about Derrida.

That's what the whole argument with him was about as far as I can see.

You sound like you're a weasel more than an injured mouse when you try to maintain this whole argument isn't about you introducing Derrida from nowhere and saying it must be modernism anon's fault for it coming up.

It's pretty obvious you know that anon's paragraph was about modernism and Manet and that it holds true and anon wasn't talking about deconstruction and it took you shoehorning in Derrida for Derrida to come up. I think you know that, and you're hoping there's some way to weasel out plausible deniability over what you know you've done.

It makes you less sympathetic than when the other guy was just owning you by quoting where you started the strawman.

There's a reason why you're the only one seeing Derrida in a paragraph about Manet's modernist painting. It's not that anon is psychically planting those thought in your head, I'm pretty sure.

Which is more likely:
>anon started a paragraph about Manet with a super secret so secret even he won't admit to it oblique reference to Derrida only you can see
>anon was just writing about modernism

It really does feel like talking to Chrischan, anon. I don't know who you're doing this for, because it's obvious you need people to believe lies and discount the evidence in the quote chain. I think it's unlikely you'll convince me or modernism anon that modernism anon really really super secretly meant to say Derrida before you shoehorned him in. Especially since I think modernism anon has given up on you.

>>10017361
He's right about Manet but it doesn't mean his example extends to the rest of modernism. Disregarding the example about Manet isn't taking it 'out of context'. What I quoted was the context for the Manet quote, not the other way around.

There is no mistake with what happened except for the misinterpretation of my intention, which you think occurred as such:
>You mistook a definition of modernism for a definition of deconstruction and insisted that anon must have been talking about Derrida.

This isn't what happened at all. Holding things to their own standards literally is a definition of deconstruction. There is no mistake there. I don't think he was talking about Derrida. I think he described deconstruction unwittingly, which is why I brought it up because they were similar. Please point out how this was the incorrect thing to do if you can. <<<<<<

This is why I said 'this is interesting' because I'd never seen modernism described in that way, but I had seen deconstruction described in that way. Still no mistake as far as I can see. No brain fart -- I knew what I was doing. I was attempting to sort out discrepancy between his and my interpretations of modernism.

So I described how I saw modernism. This description hasn't been contended with at all and still remains accurate. This is why I think that anon (which is probably you -- you are strangely adamant on defending him and pointing out how he apparently left the thread) decided to attack me instead of reason with me, because he knew I was right when I brought up further examples (of which Derrida was the first) for why his idea of modernism was incorrect or at least strange. Still nothing wrong with my tactic as far as I know. Maybe offer actual textual evidence for your reading of the situation instead of just repeating the same thing?

>There's a reason why you're the only one seeing Derrida in a paragraph about Manet's modernist painting

Again, Manet was from the start completely irrelevant to my point. It offered colour to his argument but was irrelevant to mine. I didn't 'see Derrida' there. I saw deconstruction in the sentence immediately prior to the point about Manet. Prove otherwise if you want. The reason I didn't quote the Manet point was irrelevant. I know you read the post where I literally told you this because you alluded to it before. Don't play dumb.

>anon really really super secretly meant to say Derrida

Like I said, of course he didn't mean to say Derrida. He is unfamiliar with Derrida. That much is clear. Please don't repeat this line again.

>>10017405
>. Disregarding the example about Manet isn't taking it 'out of context'.
It is, anon. You know it is. It's clearly the example of how the definition works that he included in the paragraph for clarity. It's not hard and you're not so dumb that you don't know how a paragraph works. We both know you know this.

>>10017405
>Like I said, of course he didn't mean to say Derrida. He is unfamiliar with Derrida. That much is clear. Please don't repeat this line again.
This is also hilarious because you said he must be saying Derrida was modernist. That's the claim he argued with you over, and we're still arguing over.

It's very funny you've gone from claiming his modernism post must be about Derrida to claiming he could not have read Derrida because he refused to talk about it and focused on modernism instead (while then flipflopping back and forth at will)

I'm >>10017413 too before you get worried about samefags again. It's just one anon (me) laughing at you on the way to page 10 I think, don't worry.

Jej, lad, if you hadn't been such a weasel I wouldn't be laffing

>>10017413
Maybe you're not familiar with the construction of arguments but the actual contextualisation of the evidence occurs before the evidence. Were you not taught how to write essays?

I can remove the evidence and supply my own evidence for why I think his initial claim was wrong. I even addressed the evidence he gave anyway with reference to Bataille and his influence on postmodern photography. In fact if you read Formless: A User's Guide it is almost exclusively postmodern art. But an advanced definition of postmodern for real thinkers who don't believe that bringing up counter-evidence means the opponent was talking about that counter-evidence all along.

>>10017441
>Maybe you're not familiar with the construction of arguments but the actual contextualisation of the evidence occurs before the evidence.
Anon, we both know that paragraph is about modernism and Manet, and you seeing deconstruction in it was your brainfart. I don't think you're even convincing yourself at this point, to be honest.

>>10017425
>This is also hilarious because you said he must be saying Derrida was modernist.

Nah
>>10017215
>>10017173
>>10016631

Where did I state his beliefs?

>his modernism post must be about Derrida

Nah, see above. I said his description of modernism was more a description of deconstruction, so either he was wrong about modernism or Derrida was a modernist. I went with the former (which means the first option i.e. he was wrong)

Still having trouble?

>>10017442
>you seeing deconstruction in it was your brainfart

No, he literally described deconstruction. What else is Derrida doing other than holding philosophers accountable to the rules of their own philosophy? Is this the part you are confused about?

Also before you say it, no I don't think he was talking about deconstruction.

>>10017448
>Where did I state his beliefs?
I'll point you back to where he pointed you back

>>10017134
>>>10017118
>>>10016631
>>you have actually claimed postmodernism for modernism or that actually Derrida is as much not a 'post-structuralist' or 'post-modernist' as he says.
>That's what you said. I made no such claim, and you mistook my claim about Manet as a claim and conclusion about Derrida.


His claim about modernism and Manet is pretty self contained and very clearly about Manet and modernism, and not deconstruction.

While your brainfart is wrong, you're the one who came up with it, and tried to shoehorn in deconstruction to paragraph clearly about modernism.

Do you want me to report the post you had the brainfart and all the ones you're wrong in so they disappear, even though the archive will have logged them by now? I can't really see any way of you getting out of the evidence you're talking out of your ass. It's in the quotechain and on the internet forever. =/

>>10017452
>No, he literally described deconstruction.
No, he's defining a modernist tendency in art. Whence the Manet example and using the term "modernism" not "deconstruction". You'd have a leg to stand on if he had a brainfart and mixed up those two words, but you did.

>>10017458
Note the 'either' there that he missed in the quote. He says he 'made no such claim' meaning, I guess, that he did not claim postmodernism for modernism, which means the option falls to the second i.e. Derrida is a modernist.

But since he took my quote out of context, he didn't see I already went with the first option and demonstrated a more commonly accepted conception of modernism, which he ignored because it contradicted his misreading all because he missed a single word.

>His claim about modernism and Manet is pretty self contained and very clearly about Manet and modernism, and not deconstruction.

I agree, hence why I said
>Also before you say it, no I don't think he was talking about deconstruction.
in the previous post.

>you're the one who came up with it

Yes you're right I did come up with a counter-example trying to demonstrate why his idea of modernism was wrong (because it was deconstructionist thus postmodern). How is it not clear that is what I was doing? Was it me describing modernism in different terms that made you think I wasn't talking about modernism?

Here's what I said:
>But modernism to me

Yeah really fucking hard to follow.

What I said:
>This is interesting because that is what I think is 'deconstruction'
What you think I said:
>You're talking about Derrida

Want to read that initial post again to see where you went wrong?